NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 6744104" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I think it's been established now what likely should have been obvious early on in this thread, which is that it's possible to use Charisma checks in different ways which make them more or less appropriate for use against PCs. [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], and perhaps several others, seems to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain "how well" a particular character is using that ability. I hope that's a fair characterization. A successful Charisma check, in this view, tells the players how impressive a character seems, even to the point of having the effect of producing an involuntary physical response in the PC. What the PC then does with that information is up to the player, but the implication is that it is to be used to inform roleplay, and that to ignore it is considered bad form or unfair play.My own practice, on the other hand, is to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain if a character will achieve his or her goals in a social interaction. The die roll in this case determines whether an NPC the character is trying to influence will agree to help the character in some way.Needless to say, these two approaches are quite different and have different implications for their use in the game. For me, my approach precludes the use of a Charisma check directly against a PC because, if successful, that would be the DM telling the player what decision his or her PC makes. Conversely, if I was playing a PC at [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] table, I would have no problem with the DM making a random determination about how impressive an NPC seems at the moment. I do this sort of thing all the time when I DM, usually by rolling to determine an NPC's Starting Attitude, which is not quite the same thing, but falls into the general category of the DM using the dice to inform his or her description of the world.What I would take exception to, however, is if that description includes my PC having a reaction, whether it be physical or mental, that determines, or even influences, the resulting course of my roleplaying. I also dislike penalties and social pressure designed to ensure what others call "good roleplaying".I am curious, however, when it comes to the issue of Intimidation, specifically the way [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] uses the skill, where a successful check results in a PC having an involuntary physical reaction. The first question I have is what sets the DC for my character to feel thus physically intimidated? Secondly, is there a similar involuntary physical reaction that happens as a result of a successful Charisma (Persuasion) check or Charisma (Deception) check?That's why the attack roll vs. AC is a simulation of a fictional combat. We each determine what our characters do through roleplay, but to resolve the attacks and other actions we take in a way that's fair, we need to look to an impartial action resolution mechanism, unless there's some circumstance that would enable the DM to determine auto-success or failure. I think we're in agreement about this.So now we're talking about running a simulation of a conversation where an NPC is trying to convince a PC to go on a quest. I'm assuming you call for a Charisma (Persuasion) check to find out "how well" the NPC does at persuading the PC, but what does it mean if s/he does a good job? Do you simply describe the NPC as eloquently making a very convincing argument and let the player decide how the PC responds? Do you tell the player that his or her PC actually feels persuaded with the implication that making some other decision is ignoring an in-game stimulus? Or is the PC actually convinced to go on the quest no matter what the player decides? And finally, how do you set a DC for any of this? My issue with using Charisma checks against PCs is when they work the way I run them. I have no problem with using the dice to randomly determine something in the game-world which is then described to the players. The way you've described it, you roll Charisma for the Orc and tell the players the result as a shorthand for how impressive the Orc appears. As I said, you could just as well make this information up if you had a specific scene in mind, but I have no problem with you using a random roll to do that.The other thing you've described using the roll for is to see if the PC has a strong feeling of intimidation, and that this feeling must be acknowledged by the player, i.e. the PC is expected to act like s/he has this feeling or risk the displeasure of the DM or the group. I do have a problem with this use of a Charisma check because it treads too close to telling me how to play my PC.Anyone who doesn't want to play their character as intimidated.I've said it because that's how I do it. When a character in one of my games attempts to influence an NPC through social interaction, I may call for a Charisma check. If the roll hits the DC I set for the character's influence to have the desired effect, I effectively take control away from the NPC and have the NPC agree to give in to the request. I don't expect the players of PCs to submit to the results of such rolls, nor would I want them to. I have enough to do as DM without playing the players' characters for them.I'm still not clear on how telling a player that his PC is afraid of an Orc isn't taking away some of the player's control over how his or her character feels, but I think most of the accusations you are responding to here are the result in the different expectations people are bringing to this thread about how Charisma checks are used and what the result of a successful check should be.</blockquote>

Verification